Voucher Reform for New York City Schools?

On Thursday June 27, 2002, the constitutional status of the Cleveland Scholarship Tutoring Program was upheld, or as USA Today tells it, "Supreme Court OKs school vouchers."

On Thursday June 27, 2002, the constitutional status of the Cleveland
Scholarship Tutoring Program was upheld, or as USA Today tells it,
"Supreme Court OKs school vouchers."

The Program is a small-scale
reform to offer more educational choices to low-income families in
Cleveland: if the families want to attend a private school, the state
will give them up to $2,250 toward the fees. Until stopped by the
courts, almost 4,000 students had taken up the offer of this education
voucher. Now, the voucher program is declared constitutional, and
voucher advocates are excited about the prospect of setting up more
voucher programs across the country.

Is this a good idea? In evaluating
education voucher programs, researchers at the National Center for the
Study of Privatization (NCSPE) at Teachers College ask four questions:
Do vouchers offer freedom of choice? Are they efficient? Are they fair?
Do they impair or enhance social cohesion? These questions all need to
be answered, and there are many responses to each one. Here's how the
Supreme Court responded. (See the NCSPE website, www.ncspe.org, for
other approaches).

The majority opinion clearly emphasized freedom of
choice; vouchers-along with community schools and magnet schools-offer
"true private" and "genuine" freedom of choice. Such choices are an
important part of a "general and multifaceted undertaking by the
State." In fact, choice trumps our question about efficiency: as
Justice O'Connor wrote: "For nonreligious schools to qualify as genuine
options for parents, they need not be superior to religious schools in
every respect. They need only be adequate substitutes for religious
schools in the eyes of parents." It's not necessary to second-guess the
suitability of the choices that parents make; they will make the best
choice, even if an analysis of test scores may suggest otherwise.

On
the question of fairness, Justice Thomas wrote tellingly of the need
for more options in the inner cities for low-income families. As
"failing urban public schools disproportionately affect minority
children," it is the case that "many blacks now support school choice
programs because they provide the greatest educational opportunities
for their children in struggling communities." Vouchers as
'opportunities for struggling communities' may be the tipping factor
that encourages their wider adoption.

But last is not least: Do
vouchers impair or enhance social cohesion? In dissenting opinions,
Justices Breyer and Stevens cautioned of the risk "that publicly
financed voucher programs pose in terms of religiously based social
conflict" and of their potential to "weaken our foundation of
democracy." These risks should make reformers wary. These were the
Supreme Court's answers to our four questions, and undoubtedly, they
will please voucher advocates.

The ruling stresses the advantages of
choice and the fairness of education vouchers over possible losses in
social cohesion. It also corresponds well with advocates' new, focused
agenda: voucher programs for low-income families in inner-cities. And,
it clarifies a debate where beforehand uncertainty had scared away
supporters.

But, although voucher advocates may be bullish, the Supreme
Court only states what is permissible in law. Education reform needs
also to be desirable in practice. Are vouchers desirable and practical?
Let's take New York City as our case study.

At first blush, New York
City looks ripe for a voucher program. What about more freedom of
choice? There would be plenty of private schools to select and New
Yorkers have reasonable commutes to multiple school sites. Productive
efficiency? The public school system is much-criticized; mandates for
extra financing are stuck in the courts; and the 'education mayor'
might now have sufficient discretion and suasion to effect quick
change. Equity? In recent field trials in New York City, vouchers
generated at best modest gains; but the largest gains were for those
with the fewest education opportunities in the current system.

But
there are plenty of obstacles. Community groups and teachers still have
concerns-they successfully opposed privatization maneuvers last year.
Public school parents remain to be convinced-a sizeable proportion of
recipients do not use their vouchers. Current private school families
may be eligible, claiming vouchers for schools they would have attended
anyway. Private schools may be reluctant participants-unwilling to
accept government regulations that may accompany voucher students or to
accept students who are insufficiently devout.

So, the Mayor would be
in charge of an education system that seeks to provide a common
experience for democracy and social cohesion for the children of
immigrants, but where fulfillment of this responsibility is left to
schools whose attractions to parents may be based upon religion,
ethnicity, and political values. Can a New York mayor turn his back on
these traditional concerns, or would he push for testing and curriculum
standards among private schools taking vouchers? For an administration
with financial difficulties, voucher programs may look too expensive to
implement-extra costs may arise with more record-keeping, for instance.
And, what should the value of the voucher be? The Cleveland voucher was
worth $2,250, a sum unlikely to entice many of Manhattan's private
schools. But a value any higher would reduce the program's efficiency
and so its attractiveness.

The Supreme Court ruling does nothing to
address these obstacles. For, ultimately, there are no quick fixes in
America's schools, and there are no easy choices. In these two
respects, then, education vouchers fit right in. Please visit the
National Center for the Study of Privitization in Education for more
information at www.ncspe.org.

Voucher Reform for New York City Schools?

On Thursday June 27, 2002, the constitutional status of the Cleveland
Scholarship Tutoring Program was upheld, or as USA Today tells it,
"Supreme Court OKs school vouchers."

The Program is a small-scale
reform to offer more educational choices to low-income families in
Cleveland: if the families want to attend a private school, the state
will give them up to $2,250 toward the fees. Until stopped by the
courts, almost 4,000 students had taken up the offer of this education
voucher. Now, the voucher program is declared constitutional, and
voucher advocates are excited about the prospect of setting up more
voucher programs across the country.

Is this a good idea? In evaluating
education voucher programs, researchers at the National Center for the
Study of Privatization (NCSPE) at Teachers College ask four questions:
Do vouchers offer freedom of choice? Are they efficient? Are they fair?
Do they impair or enhance social cohesion? These questions all need to
be answered, and there are many responses to each one. Here's how the
Supreme Court responded. (See the NCSPE website, www.ncspe.org, for
other approaches).

The majority opinion clearly emphasized freedom of
choice; vouchers-along with community schools and magnet schools-offer
"true private" and "genuine" freedom of choice. Such choices are an
important part of a "general and multifaceted undertaking by the
State." In fact, choice trumps our question about efficiency: as
Justice O'Connor wrote: "For nonreligious schools to qualify as genuine
options for parents, they need not be superior to religious schools in
every respect. They need only be adequate substitutes for religious
schools in the eyes of parents." It's not necessary to second-guess the
suitability of the choices that parents make; they will make the best
choice, even if an analysis of test scores may suggest otherwise.

On
the question of fairness, Justice Thomas wrote tellingly of the need
for more options in the inner cities for low-income families. As
"failing urban public schools disproportionately affect minority
children," it is the case that "many blacks now support school choice
programs because they provide the greatest educational opportunities
for their children in struggling communities." Vouchers as
'opportunities for struggling communities' may be the tipping factor
that encourages their wider adoption.

But last is not least: Do
vouchers impair or enhance social cohesion? In dissenting opinions,
Justices Breyer and Stevens cautioned of the risk "that publicly
financed voucher programs pose in terms of religiously based social
conflict" and of their potential to "weaken our foundation of
democracy." These risks should make reformers wary. These were the
Supreme Court's answers to our four questions, and undoubtedly, they
will please voucher advocates.

The ruling stresses the advantages of
choice and the fairness of education vouchers over possible losses in
social cohesion. It also corresponds well with advocates' new, focused
agenda: voucher programs for low-income families in inner-cities. And,
it clarifies a debate where beforehand uncertainty had scared away
supporters.

But, although voucher advocates may be bullish, the Supreme
Court only states what is permissible in law. Education reform needs
also to be desirable in practice. Are vouchers desirable and practical?
Let's take New York City as our case study.

At first blush, New York
City looks ripe for a voucher program. What about more freedom of
choice? There would be plenty of private schools to select and New
Yorkers have reasonable commutes to multiple school sites. Productive
efficiency? The public school system is much-criticized; mandates for
extra financing are stuck in the courts; and the 'education mayor'
might now have sufficient discretion and suasion to effect quick
change. Equity? In recent field trials in New York City, vouchers
generated at best modest gains; but the largest gains were for those
with the fewest education opportunities in the current system.

But
there are plenty of obstacles. Community groups and teachers still have
concerns-they successfully opposed privatization maneuvers last year.
Public school parents remain to be convinced-a sizeable proportion of
recipients do not use their vouchers. Current private school families
may be eligible, claiming vouchers for schools they would have attended
anyway. Private schools may be reluctant participants-unwilling to
accept government regulations that may accompany voucher students or to
accept students who are insufficiently devout.

So, the Mayor would be
in charge of an education system that seeks to provide a common
experience for democracy and social cohesion for the children of
immigrants, but where fulfillment of this responsibility is left to
schools whose attractions to parents may be based upon religion,
ethnicity, and political values. Can a New York mayor turn his back on
these traditional concerns, or would he push for testing and curriculum
standards among private schools taking vouchers? For an administration
with financial difficulties, voucher programs may look too expensive to
implement-extra costs may arise with more record-keeping, for instance.
And, what should the value of the voucher be? The Cleveland voucher was
worth $2,250, a sum unlikely to entice many of Manhattan's private
schools. But a value any higher would reduce the program's efficiency
and so its attractiveness.

The Supreme Court ruling does nothing to
address these obstacles. For, ultimately, there are no quick fixes in
America's schools, and there are no easy choices. In these two
respects, then, education vouchers fit right in. Please visit the
National Center for the Study of Privitization in Education for more
information at www.ncspe.org.